text:
Pocono RacewayJul 31, 2016 | 1:30p ETTicketsRace Center
Iowa SpeedwayJul 30, 2016 | 8:00p ETTicketsRace Center
Pocono RacewayJul 30, 2016 | 1:00p ETTicketsRace Center
North Carolina Education Lottery 200 lineup
Kyle Busch will lead off the start of the North Carolina Education Lottery 200
North Carolina Education Lottery 200 entry list
Charlotte marks the fourth stop for the Truck Series in 2014
Post-Race Reactions: North Carolina Education Lottery 200
Check out the post-race reactions from Matt Crafton and Brad Keselowski at Charlotte Motor Speedway.
Post-Race Reactions: North Carolina Education Lottery 200
Clint Bowyer and Cole Whitt comment on their good runs, while Ron Hornaday and Johnny Sauter discuss their post-race meeting.
Matt Crafton wins Truck race at Charlotte
RELATED: Full race results " Updated series standings CONCORD, N.C. -- Matt Crafton had a lot to overcome on Saturday -- a 17th-place starting position and a difficult pit stall that cost him dearly in the early stages of Saturday's North Carolina Education Lottery 200 at Charlotte Motor Speedway . But after 134 laps, Crafton was 5.748 seconds ahead of second-place Kyle Busch , winning the race and extending his series lead to 12 points over seventh-place finisher Timothy Peters . In fact, the two-time champion won consecutive races for the first time in his NASCAR Camping World Truck Series career, going back-to-back in successive weeks at Dover and Charlotte. Even though it took Crafton more than half the race to get to the front, he sensed the quality of his ride from the drop of the green flag. "I literally did," Crafton said. "I was like, 'Wow!' This thing was unbelievable from the time we dropped the green. This thing went through (Turns) 1 and 2 -- well, the first original start, everybody got jumbled up and went through (Turns) 1 and 2 and then 3 and 4, and I'm like, 'This thing feels really good right here.' "Then we fell back to the 20s (after pit road issues) at that point and we started driving back through them and I was like, 'Oh, my goodness, these boys are in trouble today.' " The victory was the 13th of Crafton's career, but despite the wide margin of victory, his No. 88 ThorSport Racing Toyota didn't take the lead for the first time until Lap 80, when Crafton tracked down Peters and passed him for the top spot. After starting mid-pack, Crafton worked his way forward during the first run but had major issues on pit road, first sliding through his pit box and later getting blocked in his stall. The miscues forced Crafton to pass a gaggle of cars, but by Lap 78 he was fourth for a restart after Christopher Bell 's spin off Turn 4, and two laps later, Crafton had the lead. The advantage grew to more than 8.5 seconds before a cycle of green-flag pit stops for fuel trimmed Crafton's winning margin in the closing laps. Johnny Sauter did an extraordinary job of saving fuel and rolled home third behind Crafton and Busch. Tyler Reddick and Matt Tifft , the latter recently named to the 2016-17 NASCAR Next class, were fourth and fifth, respectively, both on fuel strategy. Spencer Gallagher , Peters, Bell, Daniel Hemric and polesitter William Byron completed the top 10. Busch led 27 laps in the early going but suffered a suspension part failure that caused the handling of his No. 18 Tundra to tighten up. Nor did it help that Busch's team was penalized for an uncontrolled tire during a pit stop on Lap 68, forcing the driver to restart at the rear of the field on Lap 71. "Once we got back in traffic, it just got super, super tight," said Busch, whose Kyle Busch Motorsports organization also owns the trucks driven by Bell, Byron and Daniel Suarez . "Something broke, and after that, it was just laying on the splitter."
Cameron Hayley takes Truck Series by storm
18-year-old Canadian rounds out powerful ThorSport team CONCORD, N.C. -- In the dead of winter a little more than two years ago, Cameron Hayley took the route of many so-called "snow birds" from his home country of Canada to ride out the harsh February days in the far more temperate climate of Florida. This particular trip, though, wasn't simply a search for warmer weather. It also managed to launch his spring-loaded NASCAR career. Hayley, an 18-year-old driver from Calgary, Alberta, found pay dirt against top-flight short-track talent that February at Daytona International Speedway , claiming the checkered flag in the NASCAR K&N Pro Series portion of the inaugural UNOH Battle at the Beach tripleheader in 2013. He added his name to a distinguished list of winners, with an up-and-coming Kyle Larson prevailing in the Whelen All-American Series race and former Sprint Cup Series winner Steve Park scoring a resurgent victory in the Whelen Modified Tour event. "It does seem like a long time ago now," Hayley said Thursday at Charlotte Motor Speedway . "I mean, it was only two years ago, but when it comes down to it -- I've done so much since then." Though the race was an exhibition that paid out no points toward the K&N championship, it helped elevate the stature of an otherwise little-known talent from the Great White North . Fast forward, and Hayley's name takes its place on another list altogether -- as a Sunoco Rookie of the Year candidate in the NASCAR Camping World Truck Series with ThorSport Racing, the championship team the last two seasons. "I think that's kind of what put me on the map with everybody," Hayley said. "Everyone started knowing my name after that and obviously moving to the K&N East Series last year it kind of got me down into the North Carolina , Charlotte-area and I guess people started to know my name more after that. It was kind of that Battle of the Beach when that really sparked people knowing me more." A pair of runner-up finishes in the K&N Series' title hunt the last two years helped that cause. So did his first ventures into the Camping World Truck Series, where he showed speed and landed two top-10s in his first three starts last season. After attracting the eye of team owner Duke Thorson and landing a seat in ThorSport's third truck alongside veteran teammates Matt Crafton and Johnny Sauter , Hayley has shown steady growth, even while visiting tracks for the first time in his national series career. Despite the unfamiliarity, Hayley has improved his finishing position each week, capped by last weekend's fifth-place effort at Kansas Speedway . More improvement is the target again at Charlotte, site of Friday night's NC Education Lottery 200 (8:30 p.m. ET, FOX Sports 1, PRN, SiriusXM). "It's definitely been tough," Hayley said. "This race is going to be my fifth new track again this year, so adjusting to all the different tracks and having all the tracks being new has definitely been difficult, but ThorSport has given me great trucks week in and week out and, like you said, we've been consistently getting better every single race. And we've had great trucks and had some bad luck, and I think Charlotte is going to be another one where I have lots to learn, but I think we have a great truck here and can do well." The learning curve may have been accelerated by having teammates in Crafton, the two-time defending series champion, and fellow veteran Sauter -- who have a combined 498 truck series starts to their credit. Hayley has 491 starts to catch the two; in the meantime, he's tapping them as a resource for as much advice as he can digest. "Both of them have been a tremendous help for me already," Hayley said. "Like I said, all these tracks have been new to me, so I can study race tapes, videos all I want, but until to you talk to a driver you don't really know a firsthand account of what's happening. Both these guys have helped me a lot. I haven't been quite quick enough to run up beside them during races yet, but I think we're getting there and I think I can learn a lot from that as well." Even though Hayley is still new to the team, Sauter said he likes what he's seen so far in the teenager's composure. "I don't really know him, he's a rookie, new to the deal -- but I think he's got a pretty good head on his shoulders," Sauter said. "I see him doing things that maybe necessarily don't see from a lot of rookie drivers and I think he's taking care of his equipment and showing speed at the same time. I think he's been top of the board at Atlanta and Kansas, so there's speed there and he's only going to get better, so I think he's doing a great job and I see some things in him that I typically don't see in a lot of young guys at his age and at his experience level." FULL SERIES COVERAGE • Latest news • Standings • Schedule
NASCAR reveals race start times for 2016 season
RELATED: Schedule times highlights DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. (Jan. 26, 2016) -- NASCAR ® , in collaboration with broadcast partners FOX Sports, NBC Sports Group, race teams and the 29 tracks committed to hosting races for the coming season, today announced race start times and network coverage for all three of its national series based on previously released schedule dates for 2016. Entering the second season of 10-year comprehensive media rights agreements, races will be televised by FOX, FS1, NBC and NBCSN, with the exception of select events in August that will air on CNBC and USA due to NBC Sports' coverage of the Summer Olympics. National series races will also be broadcast live by Motor Racing Network (MRN), Performance Racing Network (PRN), IMS Radio Network and SiriusXM NASCAR Radio, channel 90. Fans can visit www.nascar.com/tv-schedule for weekly tune-in information throughout the season. Tickets to all NASCAR national series events are available at www.nascar.com/tickets . MORE: Retirement not on Dale Jr.'s radar "NASCAR concluded 2015 with its most-watched championship finale in a decade, a benchmark that serves as a testament to deeper collaboration with our television and radio partners and increased engagement with fans," said Steve Herbst, senior vice president, broadcasting and production at NASCAR. "We look forward to carrying this momentum into 2016, starting with the DAYTONA 500 ® and Speedweeks, as the number of homes reached by our broadcast content continues to grow both domestically and internationally." 2016 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Schedule Date Location Network Race Start Radio 2/13 Sprint Unlimited at Daytona International Speedway FOX 8 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 2/14 DAYTONA 500 Qualifying at Daytona International Speedway FOX 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 2/18 Can-Am Duel at Daytona International Speedway FS1 7 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 2/21 DAYTONA 500 at Daytona International Speedway FOX 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 2/28 Folds of Honor QuikTrip 500 at Atlanta Motor Speedway FOX 1 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 3/6 Kobalt 400 at Las Vegas Motor Speedway FOX 3:30 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 3/13 Good Sam 500 at Phoenix International Raceway FOX 3:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 3/20 Auto Club 400 at Auto Club Speedway FOX 3:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 4/3 STP 500 at Martinsville Speedway FS1 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 4/9 Duck Commander 500 at Texas Motor Speedway FOX 7:30 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 4/17 Food City 500 at Bristol Motor Speedway FOX 1 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 4/24 Toyota Owners 400 at Richmond International Raceway FOX 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 5/1 GEICO 500 at Talladega Superspeedway FOX 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 5/7 GoBowling.com 400 at Kansas Speedway FS1 7:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 5/15 Dover International Speedway FS1 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 5/20 Sprint Showdown at Charlotte Motor Speedway FS1 7 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 5/21 NASCAR Sprint All-Star Race at Charlotte Motor Speedway FS1 7 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 5/29 Coca-Cola 600 at Charlotte Motor Speedway FOX 6 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 6/5 Axalta 'We Paint Winners' 400 at Pocono Raceway FS1 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 6/12 Firekeepers Casino 400 at Michigan International Speedway FS1 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 6/26 Toyota / Save Mart 350 at Sonoma Raceway FS1 3 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 7/2 Coke Zero 400 Powered by Coca-Cola at Daytona International Speedway NBC 7:45 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 7/9 Quaker State 400 Presented by Advance Auto Parts at Kentucky Speedway NBCSN 7:30 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 7/17 New Hampshire 301 at New Hampshire Motor Speedway NBCSN 1:30 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 7/24 Crown Royal Presents the 'Your Hero's Name Here' 400 at Indianapolis Motor Speedway NBCSN 3 p.m. IMS / SiriusXM 7/31 Pennsylvania 400 at Pocono Raceway NBCSN 1:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 8/7 Cheez-It 355 at The Glen Watkins Glen International USA 2:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 8/20 Bass Pro Shops NRA Night Race at Bristol Motor Speedway NBCSN 8 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 8/28 Pure Michigan 400 at Michigan International Speedway NBCSN 2 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 9/4 Bojangles' Southern 500 at Darlington Raceway NBC 6 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 9/10 Federated Auto Parts 400 at Richmond International Raceway NBCSN 7:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 9/18 Chicagoland Speedway NBCSN 2:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 9/25 New England 300 at New Hampshire Motor Speedway NBCSN 2 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 10/2 AAA 400 at Dover International Speedway NBCSN 2 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 10/8 Bank of America 500 at Charlotte Motor Speedway NBC 7 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 10/16 Hollywood Casino 400 at Kansas Speedway NBC 2:15 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 10/23 Alabama 500 at Talladega Superspeedway NBCSN 2 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 10/30 Goody's Fast Relief 500 at Martinsville Speedway NBCSN 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 11/6 AAA Texas 500 at Texas Motor Speedway NBC 2 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 11/13 Can-Am 500 at Phoenix International Raceway NBC 2:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 11/20 Ford EcoBoost 400 at Homestead-Miami Speedway NBC 2:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 2016 NASCAR XFINITY Series Schedule Date Location Network Race Start Radio 2/20 Powershares QQQ 300 at Daytona International Speedway FS1 3:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 2/27 Head's Up Georgia 250 at Atlanta Motor Speedway FS1 1:30 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 3/5 Boyd Gaming 300 at Las Vegas Motor Speedway FS1 4 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 3/12 Axalta Faster. Tougher. Brighter 200 at Phoenix International Raceway FOX 2:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 3/19 Auto Club Speedway FS1 4 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 4/8 O'Reilly Auto Parts 300 at Texas Motor Speedway FS1 8:30 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 4/16 Bristol Motor Speedway FS1 12:30 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 4/23 ToyotaCare 250 at Richmond International Raceway FS1 12:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 4/30 Talladega 300 at Talladega Superspeedway FOX 3 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 5/14 Dover International Speedway FOX 2 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 5/28 Hisense 300 at Charlotte Motor Speedway FS1 2:30 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 6/4 Pocono Raceway FOX 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 6/11 Michigan International Speedway FS1 1:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 6/19 Iowa Speedway FS1 1:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 7/1 Subway Firecracker 250 Powered by Coca-Cola at Daytona International Speedway NBCSN 7:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 7/8 Kentucky 300 at Kentucky Speedway NBCSN 8:30 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 7/16 Lakes Region 200 at New Hampshire Motor Speedway NBCSN 4 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 7/23 Lilly Diabetes 250 at Indianapolis Motor Speedway NBCSN 3:30 p.m. IMS / SiriusXM 7/30 U.S. Cellular 250 at Iowa Speedway NBCSN 8 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 8/6 Zippo 200 at The Glen at Watkins Glen International CNBC 2 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 8/13 Mid-Ohio 200 at Mid-Ohio Sports Car Course USA 3:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 8/19 Food City 300 at Bristol Motor Speedway USA 7:30 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 8/27 Road America 180 Fired Up by Johnsonville at Road America NBCSN 3 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 9/3 VFW Sport Clips Help a Hero 200 at Darlington Raceway NBC 3:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 9/9 Virginia 529 College Savings 250 at Richmond International Raceway NBCSN 7:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 9/17 Chicagoland Speedway NBC 3:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 9/24 VisitMyrtleBeach.com 300 at Kentucky Speedway NBCSN 8 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 10/1 Drive Sober 200 at Dover International Speedway NBCSN 3 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 10/7 Drive for the Cure 300 Presented by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina at Charlotte Motor Speedway NBCSN 8 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 10/15 Kansas Lottery 300 at Kansas Speedway NBCSN 4 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 11/5 O'Reilly Auto Parts Challenge at Texas Motor Speedway NBC 3:30 p.m. PRN / SiriusXM 11/12 Phoenix International Raceway NBC 3:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 11/19 Ford EcoBoost 300 at Homestead-Miami Speedway NBCSN 3:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 2016 NASCAR Camping World Truck Series Schedule Date Location Network Race Start Radio 2/19 NextEra Energy Resources 250 at Daytona International Speedway FS1 7:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 2/27 Georgia 200 at Atlanta Motor Speedway FS1 4:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 4/2 Martinsville Speedway FS1 2:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 5/6 Toyota Tundra 250 at Kansas Speedway FS1 8:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 5/13 Dover International Speedway FS1 5:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 5/20 North Carolina Education Lottery 200 at Charlotte Motor Speedway FS1 8:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 6/10 Rattlesnake 400 at Texas Motor Speedway FS1 9 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 6/18 Iowa Speedway FS1 8:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 6/25 Drivin' for Linemen 200 brought to you by Ameren at Gateway Motorsports Park FS1 8:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 7/7 Kentucky 225 at Kentucky Speedway FS1 8:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 7/20 #Eldora at Eldora Speedway FS1 9 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 7/30 Pocono Mountains 150 at Pocono Raceway FS1 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 8/17 UNOH 200 at Bristol Motor Speedway FS1 8:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 8/27 Careers for Veterans 200 , presented by Cooper Standard Foundation and Brad Keselowski 's Checkered Flag Foundation at Michigan International Speedway FS1 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 9/4 Chevrolet Silverado 250 at Canadian Tire Motorsport Park FS1 2:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 9/16 Chicagoland Speedway FS1 8:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 9/24 UNOH 175 at New Hampshire Motor Speedway FS1 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 10/1 Rhino Linings 350 at Las Vegas Motor Speedway FS1 8:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 10/22 fred's 250 Powered by Coca-Cola at Talladega Superspeedway FOX 1 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 10/29 Martinsville Speedway FS1 1:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 11/4 Longhorn 350 at Texas Motor Speedway FS1 8:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 11/11 Lucas Oil 150 at Phoenix International Raceway FS1 8:30 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM 11/18 Ford EcoBoost 200 at Homestead-Miami Speedway FS1 8 p.m. MRN / SiriusXM All times Eastern. Subject to change.
O'Donnell: Working for more side-by-side racing
NASCAR executive weighs in on busy racing weekend NASCAR Executive Vice President and Chief Racing Development Officer Steve O'Donnell said Monday on SiriusXM NASCAR Radio that competition officials were working to increase side-by-side racing and passing near the front of the pack after a NASCAR Sprint All-Star Race that heavily favored leading cars. O'Donnell said that the process goes on every day at the sanctioning body's Research & Development Center in Concord, North Carolina , as NASCAR moves closer to making a final decision on the rules package for its premier Sprint Cup Series in 2016. "We actually do that every day," O'Donnell said. "We're focused on the racing, so when you look at particularly that race, we look at that as one of all of our events. We're a third of the way through the season. Lot of really great dialogue going on with the drivers, with the owners, with the race tracks, looking at how does the racing compare really over the last three to five years what, if any, of the levers can we look at as we look to the '16 package. So those discussions take place every day and we'll continue to do that today and heading into the season. "But still a third of the way through, too early to make an overall decision but certainly a lot of dialogue going on." Saturday night, Denny Hamlin claimed the $1 million All-Star prize after his Joe Gibbs Racing crew won the race off pit road before the final 10-lap segment. Once out in clean, non-turbulent air, Hamlin set sail to lead the rest of the way, taking the checkered flag by .923 seconds at Charlotte Motor Speedway . RELATED: Hamlin holds off Harvick to win Sprint All-Star Race The outcome was different than that of Friday night's NASCAR Camping World Truck Series North Carolina Education Lottery 200 at the intermediate-sized track. Eventual winner Kasey Kahne edged rookie Erik Jones in a captivating green-white-checkered finish after the two drivers raced side-by-side for virtually the entire two-lap shootout. O'Donnell said it was difficult to compare the two divisions, but he liked what he saw. "I think the ability to maintain that side-by-side racing is what we want to see," O'Donnell said. "There's a lot of variables with trucks, with aero, the distance of the races, who's in the field, that sort of thing. But certainly thought it was a tremendous race Friday night and of course, ultimately we'd like to see that throughout all of our divisions each and every race." This weekend's racing for all three national series brought some official rulings, both post-race and mid-race. In the truck series' event, Kahne's winning JR Motorsports No. 00 Chevrolet was deemed too low on both sides in the front and too high on one side in the rear after a post-race inspection. RELATED: Kahne wins Truck Series race, but fails post-race inspection Kahne started at the rear of the field after the team made an unapproved shock change before the race. Competition officials are expected to rule on the issue Tuesday, but O'Donnell said all factors will be considered before the final decision. "Every car or truck will have to pass pre-race inspection, so that's something that there's a balance there at the end of the race to make sure certain components aren't being manipulated, and that's our job to look at, but there's also cases where some pieces legitimately break," O'Donnell said. "These vehicles are out there running high 190s to 200 miles per hour, lots of contact especially when you talk truck racing. That's something that we take into consideration when we're evaluating all the vehicles post-race." Also in Saturday night's All-Star Race, a NASCAR spokesperson said that a crew member for the Hendrick Motorsports No. 48 team of driver Jimmie Johnson was under review for potentially altering a body panel late in the 110-lap invitational event. The practice of teams flaring out the side skirts ahead of the rear wheels was outlawed in the offseason. RELATED: Possible infraction for 48 team O'Donnell said that even though the event did not pay championship points, the high stakes would be reflected in how the NASCAR Rule Book is upheld for All-Star violations. "Still evaluating that like we do and if we make a decision to react, that would be on Tuesday, but there's a lot on the line for the All-Star Race," O'Donnell said. "It's not a points race, but certainly we know how much it means to win that race, so hopefully we don't have to make a call on this, but we would maintain the rule book throughout the race." Sunday in the NASCAR XFINITY Series 3M 250 , driver Brendan Poole was parked by NASCAR officials after retaliating in reaction to early race contact with J.J. Yeley at Iowa Speedway . O'Donnell said the immediate decision of race officials was necessary. "In this case when something happens on track, it's our policy to warn both drivers that we're going to be specifically looking at contact between those two," O'Donnell said. "In this case, we saw something that we believed was a move to really take someone out and we had to react. Not something we like doing, but we've got to react in that case and we did in Iowa." FULL SERIES COVERAGE • Latest news • Standings • Schedule
Crafton holds points lead heading to Dover
Jones, Reddick chasing two-time defending champ in standings Five races into the NASCAR Camping World Truck Series season, the cream is still on top. Matt Crafton 's third-place finish last Friday in the North Carolina Education Lottery 200 at Charlotte Motor Speedway allowed the series points leader to maintain his top spot. Crafton, driving the No. 88 for ThorSport Racing, now has 217 points on the strength of two wins, four top fives and a series-best five top-10 finishes. The 38-year-old Crafton is trying to three-peat as the Camping World Truck Series points champion. Crafton has 343 Trucks races under his fire suit, starting with the Motorola 200 at Fontana back in 2000. His first-ever win was the 2008 edition of the North Carolina Education Lottery . He has a modest seven career wins, but consistency works in his favor. He's placed among the top 10 in his Trucks races 57.4 percent of the time (197 out of 343). Erik Jones ' epic battle with Kasey Kahne , which included side-by-side racing for most of the final lap and a photo finish, is the type of excitement NASCAR officials — and fans — want to see. Kahne won the race by 0.005 (that's not a typo) of a second. The No. 00 Truck failed the post-race inspection for a ride-height violation. Kahne does, however, get to keep the win. Driving the No. 4 for Kyle Busch Motorsports, Jones led 88 of the 139 laps at Charlotte. Jones, who turns 19 on May 30, ranks second in the points standings. He finished 18th last year. Just two points behind Jones in the standings sits Tyler Reddick , who picked up his fourth top-five finish of the year by placing fourth last week. Driving the No. 19 Truck for Brad Keselowski Racing, Reddick already has one more top-five finish than he had in 16 starts as a rookie in 2014. The 19-year-old placed 12th in the standings last year. More than a decade removed from his rookie season in a NASCAR national series, Johnny Sauter is chasing his first-ever Truck Series title. Sauter, who turned 37 earlier this month, ranks fourth in the current standings. His best season was a second-place finish in 2011, and he placed fourth in the standings the past two years. John Wes Townley moved into the top five with a sixth-place finish at Charlotte. Townley doesn't have a win in his 74 career starts on the circuit. He was 15th in the final 2014 standings, and his best year was an 11th-place showing in 2013. Up next for the Camping World Truck Series is the Lucas Oil 200 at Dover International Speedway on May 29 (5:30 p.m. ET on FOX Sports 1, MRN, SiriusXM). FULL SERIES COVERAGE • Latest news • Standings • Schedule
Science of a crew chief: Randolph takes unusual path to racing
Doug Randolph graduated from the University of Tennessee with a degree in Wildlife and Fisheries Biology. So it was only natural that the Morristown, Tennessee, native eventually found employment in racing. "I use it every day," Randolph said, grinning. If you think he's kidding, think again. "The definition of wildlife biology is it's a science and it's an art, manipulating habitat for animals. To me, racing is the same way," said Randolph, crew chief for driver Tyler Reddick and the No. 29 Cooper Standard Ford for Brad Keselowski Racing in NASCAR's Camping World Truck Series. "If you go into it 100 percent engineering driven, and you forget the art of it, the pumping your driver up, assessing where his head is, you might not be able to pull off the success you want. For sure, that definition plays a huge role in racing I think." Reddick is eighth in points following two straight top 10s -- a seventh-place finish at Dover and a fourth-place showing at Charlotte. Teammate Daniel Hemric is third in the standings. Randolph didn't set out to become a crew chief, but he did hope to be involved in racing in some capacity. And not just videotaping local races from the top of a press box in an effort to lure fans to the local pizza join for viewing and a meal later. Yeah, he really did that. "One of my best friends worked for Mr. Gatti's Pizza and we went around to softball games, local races and videotaped them," Randolph said. "Then we'd try to convince people at the games or races to eat at Mr. Gatti's and watch the replays. "He and I would get on top of the press box. He would video and I would sit there and drink beer, to be honest. But those were good times." Randolph has served as crew chief in all three of NASCAR's national series, winning in the NASCAR XFINITY Series with drivers Scott Riggs and Clint Bowyer , as well as the Camping World Truck Series with Ryan Blaney , Keselowski and Reddick. There were near-wins in Sprint Cup , second-place finishes at Bristol (with Jimmy Spencer) and Talladega (with Paul Menard ). But his start came with a local standout, L.D. Ottinger, a Newport, Tennessee-based driver. Randolph was on the crew in 1990 when Ottinger won an event in what is now known as the XFINITY Series at Bristol Motor Speedway . It was in that race that Michael Waltrip survived one of the most devastating crashes in NASCAR, his car exploding after striking the exposed corner of the outside wall. "Nobody will ever remember who won the race; they'll always remember the wreck," Randolph said. "L.D. wasn't the first one by the wreck, but he took everyone down pit road. And when he did, he said 'He's dead.' He said it three times. "They red-flagged the race … it was hard." Incredibly, Waltrip was not injured. The time spent working for Ottinger helped lay the foundation for what was to come. "Probably one of the best people for somebody that didn't know anything about racing to learn from," Randolph said, "because his attention to detail. I'd be putting the fender decals on and one might be just a little crooked. He'd say, 'You've got to fix that' and I'd say, 'They can't see it from the stands.' He'd say, 'Yeah but I'll be driving around the race track worried that that thing's crooked.' " Understanding professors helped Randolph complete his college education while still heading to the race tracks each weekend. Eventually, he made the decision to "do this racing gig for a year or two. "L.D.'s led into going to Junior Johnson's and, man, once you're there, how do you leave racing?," Randolph said. Johnson, an inaugural member of the NASCAR Hall of Fame and one of the sport's legendary figures, won 50 times as a driver, and nearly three times that often as an owner (132 all told). Randolph's first job as crew chief came in 2001, at Bill Davis Racing with driver Dave Blaney . Eleven years later, he helped guide Blaney's son, Ryan, to the win in a Truck Series race at Iowa. He's found a home in the series, and a home at Brad Keselowski Racing. "When you're Cup racing, that is your life," Randolph said. "You have no (other) life. I've got a wonderful wife, wonderful kids. Truck racing came for me at a point in my life when my daughter was in high school playing every sport imaginable. I missed a lot of that with my son. It was great to experience it with my daughter. … "We're very lucky here that Brad has given us an organization with a definite vision that's different. He wants to give back to the sport and he's given us the freedom to go and do it. We have a great group of guys that support each other. It's a lot of fun. If you're Cup racing and you're not one of those first five guys, you're not having any fun." But there's stress at every level of racing, and that's "what you hope for," he admitted. "You hope there is a stressful situation and you and your driver and your team can get through it better than the next guy."


text:
Ratings based on 805 Verified Reviews
They paid and stayed. We double-checked.
4.7 Room cleanliness
4.6 Service & staff
4.5 Room comfort
4.5 Hotel condition
Expedia Verified ReviewsThey paid and stayed. We double-checked.
by A verified traveler
Great central locationPosted Jul 15, 2016
Loved this hotel. Great staff, quiet comfortable rooms, and reasonable compared to other high end hotels in the area.
by A verified traveler
Bull's Eye LocationPosted Jul 12, 2016
We loved the hotel. Our red eye arrived in Dublin at 7 am and our room was ready and waiting for us. The staff were all lovely and helpful. Best part, is that the hotel is located in the middle of all kinds of great boutique shops and cafes, around the corner is an outdoor shopping mall with every high end store imaginable, and it is near all kinds of tourist sites. We would definitely stay there again!!
by A verified traveler from Shepherdstown, WV
Great location, great staffPosted Jun 30, 2016
Pros: The location is excellent, within walking distance of many venues. Friendly and professional staff, it felt good and safe to stay there.
Cons: Top notch, no suggestions.
Location: The Hairy Lemon is full of character and characters, right on the corner. Most of Dublin's city center is within walking distance.
The staff at the Brooks was excellent, some of the best service I've ever received. We were greeted immediately upon arrival and checked in promptly, even though the staff was very busy. The cost for this night was a little out of my price range, but was well worth it. I would stay here every time I visit if I could afford it.
by A verified traveler from washington, dc
excellent location, lovely hotel, great staff.Posted Jun 17, 2016
one minor complaint about otherwise outstanding hotel: the TV signals are very bad. hotel needs to fix this problem. other than that, I cannot say enough nice things. the staff was extremely helpful (I had very complicated issues with a large party arriving at different times), the facility is lovely, location could not be better.
by A verified traveler
Well located and comfortable place to bePosted Jun 4, 2016
Pros: Location
Cons: Tub/shower curtain should be set out further from the tub so it doesn't draw in when the shower is run
The hotel is in the heart of the dining and entertainment area but is not on a noisy street. The room was very comfortable but there was a slight plumbing gas smell in the room when we checked in that disappeared after we ran the taps and heating cooling system for a short while. The Tub shower set up is not perfect as the shower curtain wants to draw itself into where you are standing ..but that's a small complaint really. They serve an excellent breakfast downstairs, the wifi is very good, the rooms were cleaned quickly in the morning, the staff were excellent. No serious complaints and I would consider staying there again if I ever return to Dublin.
by A verified traveler from Houston, TX
Comfort in the middle of the action.Posted May 17, 2016
Clean, comfortable, friendly service in the middle of the action.
by A verified traveler from New York, NY
Perfect!Posted Apr 11, 2016
Pros: Everything
Cons: Nothing
Location: Almost everything is nearby, and the things that are not are a short walk or an inexpensive taxi-ride.
Everyone was so nice and so helpful. It was as if every member of the staff was your friend and each had a vested interest in you having a great stay. Any time I asked a simple question, the staff not only answered my question, but offered to help me in some way. If I asked which direction to go, the staff member not only answered, but always gave me a map and drew out where to go. If I asked what time to go somewhere, the staff member not only suggested a time, but also booked a taxi for me. I felt as though in response to every question, the staff member would go one step further. The hotel itself was beautiful and everything was so clean it looked brand new. The location was perfect. It was close to everything; it seemed like every place I wanted to go was in a ten minute radius. Major sights were a five to ten minute walk, great restaurants were next door or within a ten minute walk, great stores were within a five minute walk, etc.
by Jukka I.
Debyytti DublinissaPosted Apr 10, 2016 on Ebookers
Hotellin sijanti on erinomainen. Aamiainen oli maittava ja muutenkin ruokailumahdollisuudet olivat hotellin ravintolassa hyvät. Henkilökunta oli mukavaa ja ystävällistä. Huoneessa ja muutenkin oli siistiä. Huonoina puolina voi mainita sen, että huoneessa oli kylmä ja tv ei toiminut.
by Patricia from Morristown, NJ
Convenient with Pleasant StaffPosted Apr 8, 2016 on Hotels
Great location, near shopping, nightlife, museums, galleries and restaurants. The staff were lovely and could not have been more helpful. Fiona at reception was very helpful when I called her from the US before our trip and then at the hotel. Clearly she liked her job and was focused on making our stay a success. Rooms are not huge but cover all the important bases and are comfortable. I would not hesitate to recommended this hotel and will likely stay here again.
by Martin
Posted Mar 19, 2016 on Hotels

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Senate Judiciary Committee had a first public hearing on Section 702 today, about which I'll have several posts.
One piece of good news, however, is that both some of the witnesses (Liza Goitein and David Medine; Ken Wainstein, Matt Olsen, and Rachel Brand were the other witnesses) and some of the Senators supported more transparency, including requiring the FBI to provide a count of how many US person queries of 702-collected data it does, as well as a count of how many US persons get sucked up by Section 702 more generally.
Liza Goitein presented a very reasonable view of the efforts the privacy community is making to work with the government to come up with reasonable counts.
But no one mentioned the very easy count of US person back door searches that FBI could provide today.
As I noted when this was released, as part of last year's 702 Certification process, Judge Thomas Hogan required FBI to report every time FBI reviews data on a US person query of 702 data that doesn't pertain to National Security.
[Hogan] imposed a requirement that FBI "submit in writing a report concerning each instance … in which FBI personnel receive and review Section 702-acquired information that the FBI identifies as concerning a United States person in response to a query that is not designed to find and extract foreign intelligence information." Such reporting, if required indefinitely, is worthwhile — and should have been required by Congress under USA Freedom Act.
But FBI can and presumably will game this information in two ways. First, FBI's querying system can be set such that, even if someone has access to 702 data, they can run a query that will flag a hit in 702 data but won't actually show the data underlying that positive return. This provides one way for 702-cleared people to learn that such information is in such a collection and — if they want the data without having to report it — may be able to obtain it another way. It is distinctly possible that once NSA shares EO 12333 data directly with FBI, for example, the same data will be redundantly available from that in such a way that would not need to be reported to FISC. (NSA used this arbitrage method after the 2009 problems with PATRIOT-authorized database collections.)
Plus, such reporting depends on the meaning of foreign intelligence information as defined under the Attorney General Guidelines.
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE: information relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations or foreign persons, or international terrorists.
It would be relatively easy for FBI to decide that any conversation with a foreign person constituted foreign intelligence, and in so doing count even queries on US persons to identify criminal evidence as foreign intelligence information and therefore exempt from the reporting guidance. Certainly, the kinds of queries that might lead the FBI to profile St. Paul's Somali community could be considered a measure of Somali activities in that community. Similarly, FBI might claim the search for informants who know those in a mosque with close ties overseas could be treated as the pursuit of information on foreign activities in US mosques.
Hogan imposed a worthwhile new reporting requirement. But that's still a very far cry from conducing a fair assessment of whether FBI's back door searches are constitutional.
This requirement went into effect on December 4, 2015, and Hogan required updates on such reporting by January 27, 2016, so FBI is already reporting on this.
It would take minimal effort for ODNI to release how many of these notices got sent to FISC — it could do it quarterly so we didn't learn too much from the process. Maybe there wouldn't be any notices, though for a variety of reasons I doubt it. Maybe, as I note, the number is too fake to be useful.
But it is a number, one FBI is already required to report. So they should start reporting it.
In addition to adding former National Security Division head David Kris as an amicus (I'll have more to say on this) the FISA Court announced this week that Rosemary Collyer will become presiding judge — to serve for four years — on May 19.
Collyer was the obvious choice, being the next-in-line judge from DC. But I fear she will be a crummy presiding judge, making the FISC worse than it already is.
Collyer has a history of rulings, sometimes legally dubious, backing secrecy and executive power, some of which include,
2011: Protecting redactions in the Torture OPR Report
2014: Ruling the mosaic theory did not yet make the phone dragnet illegal (in this case she chose to release her opinion)
2014: Erroneously freelance researching the Awlaki execution to justify throwing out his family's wrongful death suit
2015: Serially helping the Administration hide drone details, even after remand from the DC Circuit
I actually think her mosaic theory opinion from 2014 is one of her (and FISC's) less bad opinions of this ilk.
The FISC opinion I consider her most troubling, though, is not a FISC decision at all, but rather a ruling from last year in an EFF FOIA. Either Collyer let the government hide something that didn't need hidden, or it has exploited EFF's confusion to hide the fact that the Internet dragnet and the Upstream content programs are conducted by the same technical means, a fact that would likely greatly help EFF's effort to show all Americans were unlawfully spied on in its Jewell suit.
Back in August 2013, EFF's Nate Cardozo FOIAed information on the redacted opinion referred to in this footnote from John Bates' October 3, 2011 opinion ruling that some of NSA's upstream collected was illegal.
Here's how Cardozo described his FOIA request (these documents are all attached as appendices to this declaration).
Accordingly, EFF hereby requests the following records:
1. The "separate order" or orders, as described in footnote 15 of the October 3 Opinion quoted above, in which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "address[ed] Section 1809(a) and related issues"; and,
2. The case, order, or opinion whose citation was redacted in footnote 15 of the October 3 Opinion and described as "concluding that Section 1809(a)(2) precluded the Court from approving the government's proposed use of, among other things, certain data acquired by NSA without statutory authority through its 'upstream collection.'"
Request 2 was the only thing at issue in Collyer's ruling. By my read, it would ask for the entire opinion the citation to which was redacted, or at least identification of the case.
EFF, of course, is particularly interested in upstream collection because it's at the core of their many years long lawsuit in Jewell. To get an opinion that ruled upstream collection constituted unlawful collection sure would help in EFF's lawsuit.
In her opinion, Collyer made a point of defining "upstream" surveillance by linking to the 2012 John Bates opinion resolving the 2011 upstream issues (as well as to Wikipedia!), rather than to the footnote he used to describe it in his October 3, 2011 opinion.
The opinion in question, referred to here as the Section 1809 Opinion, held that 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a)(2) precluded the FISC from approving the Government's proposed use of certain data acquired by the National Security Agency (NSA) without statutory authority through "Upstream" collection. 3
3 "Upstream" collection refers to the acquisition of Internet communications as they transit the "internet backbone," i.e., principal data routes via internet cables and switches of U.S. internet service providers. See [Caption Redacted], 2012 WL 9189263, *1 (FISC Aug. 24, 2012); see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection (last visited Oct. 19, 2015); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone (last visited Oct. 19, 2015).
As it was, Collyer paraphrased where upstream surveillance comes from as ISPs rather than telecoms, which was redacted in the opinion she cited. But by citing that and not Bates' 2011 opinion, she excluded an entirely redacted sentence from the footnote Bates used to explain it, which in context may have described a little more about the underlying opinion.
Having thus laid out the case, Collyer deferred to NSA declarant David Sherman's judgment — without conducting a review of the document — that releasing the document would reveal details about the implementation of upstream surveillance.
Specifically, the release of the redacted information would disclose sensitive operational details associated with NSA's "Upstream" collection capability. While certain information regarding NSA's "Upstream" collection capability has been declassified and publicly disclosed, certain other information regarding the capability remains currently and properly classified. The redacted information would reveal specific details regarding the application and implementation of the "Upstream" collection capability that have not been publicly disclosed. Revealing the specific means and methodology by which certain types of SIGINT collections are accomplished could allow adversaries to develop countermeasures to frustrate NSA's collection of information crucial to national security. Disclosure of this information could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
With respect to the FISC opinion withheld in full, it is my judgment that any information in the [Section 1809 Opinion] is classified in the context of this case because it can reasonably be expected to reveal classified national security information concerning particular intelligence methods, given the nature of the document and the information that has already been released. . . . In these circumstances, the disclosure of even seemingly mundane portions of this FISC opinion would reveal particular instances in which the "Upstream" collection program was used and could reasonably be expected to encourage sophisticated adversaries to adopt countermeasures that may deprive the United States of critical intelligence. [my emphasis]
Collyer found NSA had properly withheld the document as classified information the release of which would cause "grave damage to national security."
Last week, a bunch of House Judiciary Committee members set James Clapper a letter stating that before the Committee deals with Section 702 reauthorization next year, they'd like:
They asked for those numbers by May 6.
In response, Clapper is humming and hawing about "several options" for disclosing how many Americans get spied on under Section 702.
Clapper said that "any methodology we come up with will not be completely satisfactory to all parties."
"If we could have made such an estimate and if such an estimate were easy to do — explainable without compromise — we would've done it a long time ago," he said.
We just learned there is, however, one number that should be easy-peasy to make public (and one I'm frankly alarmed the HJC members didn't mention, as they should have known about it for some time): the number of back door searches FBI conducts on Section 702 data for reasons other than national security.
As I noted the other day, in response to FISC amicus (and former Eric Holder counsel) Amy Jeffress' argument that FBI's back door searches of Section 702 are unconstitutional, Thomas Hogan required FBI "submit in writing a report concerning each instance … in which FBI personnel receive and review Section 702-acquired information that the FBI identifies as concerning a United States person in response to a query that is not designed to find and extract foreign intelligence information." As I noted, that's an easily gamed number — I'm sure FBI treats a lot of criminal matters as national security ones, and FBI has the ability to see if there is 702 data without looking at it, permitting it to see if the same data is available under another authority.
Nevertheless, DOJ must have an exact number of reports they've submitted in response to this reporting requirement, which has been in place for over four months.
That's not to say HJC shouldn't insist on getting estimates for all the other numbers they're seeking. But they should also demand that this number — the number of times FBI is using a foreign intelligence exception for criminal prosecutions that should be subject to a probable cause standard — be made public.
On Friday, I described how, for four years after the FISA Court ruled that NSA couldn't keep otherwise unlawfully collected information from a single traditional FISA order, the NSA continued to do just that with data from 702 orders.
Hogan was [] surprised to learn NSA was doing the same thing — and had been! — with Section 702 data that had otherwise been purged, which the NSA confessed to Hogan in July of last year. That is, having stopped the practice with a single traditional FISA order, they kept doing it with programmatic 702 data.
In light of the May 2011 [redacted], the Court was very surprised to learn from the July 13, 2015 Notice that the NSA had not been deleting from [redacted] Section 702 records placed on the NSA's Master Purge List ("MPL").
As the Court explained to the government at the October 8 Hearing, it expects the government to comply with its heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this Court's effective operation in considering ex parte submissions from the government, particularly in matters involving large and complex operations such as the implementation of Section 702.
That's pathetic, given the history of material misstatements to FISC.
All the more so given that it happened after NSA implemented an effort to make sure it started telling FISC the truth (the date is redacted, but it probably happened sometime between October 2011 and March 2013).
As laid out in a 2013 reissue of a 2012 NSA IG report (this report starts at PDF 55; Charlie Savage liberated this via FOIA), NSA implemented a fact-checking process on its own FISC submissions. (See PDF 101)
NSA is hiding when they first started fact-checking themselves, but it happened by March 2013. Which means the 2013 and 2014 702 recertification submissions were fact-checked. "The [Verification of Accuracy] procedures require all factual statements within the declarations to be verified." Yet neither told FISC that NSA continued to retain communications from selectors on the Master Purge List in a management database two and three years after the time (at that point) FISC had told NSA, in an order titled, "Opinion and Order Requiring Destruction of Information Obtained by Unauthorized Electronic Surveillance," it could not do so, not even with data unlawfully obtained on a single targeted FISA order. It took another year before NSA confessed to FISC it was keeping 702 data that should have been purged.
Perhaps the continued discovery of three to four violations every time NSA submits its recertification process reflects the slow implementation of fact-checking. Or perhaps there are just too many databases in which willing NSA employees can stash information before it gets purged off all the other databases.
But if the VoA was supposed to "increase confidence" in what NSA says to courts and Congress, it's not clear how continuing to miss things like ongoing retention of unlawfully collected information does that.
The NSA Has Never Not Been Violating FISA Since It Moved Stellar Wind to FISA in 2004
The Government Admits 9 Defendants Spied On Under Section 702 Have Not Gotten FISA Notice
Former Top Holder Aide Says Back Door Searches Violate Fourth Amendment; FISC Judge Thomas Hogan Doesn't Care
FBI's Back Door Searches: Explicit Permission … and Before That
Last July, NSA and CIA Decided They Didn't Have to Follow Minimization Procedures, and Judge Hogan Is Cool with That
Please consider a donation to support this work.
Back in 2013, I noted that FISA Judge John Bates had written two opinions finding NSA had violated 50 U.S.C. §1809(a)(2), which prohibits the "disclos[ure] or use[ of] information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by" FISA. Each time he did it, Bates sort of waggled around the specter of law-breaking as a way of forcing NSA to destroy data they otherwise wanted to retain and use. I suspect that is why NSA moved so quickly to shut down its PRTT program in 2011 in the wake of his upstream opinion.
In his November 6, 2015 opinion reauthorizing Section 702, presiding judge Thomas Hogan described two more definite violations of 50 U.S.C. §1809(a)(2), and one potential one, bringing the list of times the FISC caught NSA illegally surveilling Americans to four, and potentially five, times.
Hogan describes these incidents starting on 56.
Between June and August of 2010, the government filed some notices of violation in conjunction with a single electronic surveillance order (on page 58, he describes that as dealing "exclusively with Title I collection in a particular case.") It's unclear whether the scope of the surveillance extended beyond what had been authorized, or whether the government had conducted surveillance based on illegally collected data (Hogan refers to it both as overcollection but also as poison fruit). As part of its efforts to resolve the problem, the government argued it could keep some of this poisonous fruit in some kind of oversight database to prevent further collection. But it also argued that its minimization procedures "only applied to interceptions authorized by the Court and did not apply to the fruits of unlawful surveillance," effectively arguing that if it broke the law the FISC could then not tell it what to do because it had broken the law. The government also argued 50 U.S.C. §1809(a)(2) "only prohibits use or disclosure of unlawfully obtained information for investigative or analytic purposes," meaning it could keep illegal data for management purposes.
FISC didn't buy this argument generally, but in a December 10, 2010 opinion did permit NSA to retain "the results of unauthorized surveillance [that] are needed to remedy past unauthorized surveillance or prevent similar unauthorized surveillance in the future." In that opinion, FISC cited John Bates' July 2010 PRTT opinion discussing the application of 50 U.S.C. §1809(a)(2).
After further review, on May 13, 2011, the court ruled that the specific data in question did not fall within that exception.
[C]ourts should not attempt "to restrict the unqualified language of a [criminal] statute to the particular evil that Congress was trying to remedy — even assuming that it is possible to identify that evil from something other than the text of the statute itself." Brogan v United States, 522 U.S. 398, 403 (1998) … The exception recognized in the December 10, 2010 Opinion stands on narrower but firmer ground: that in limited circumstances, prohibiting use of disclosure of the results of unauthorized electronic surveillance would be "so 'absurd or glaringly unjust' … as to [call into] question whether Congress actual intended what the plain language of Section 1809(a)(2) "so clearly imports."
That decision only related to one traditional FISA order — but it did lay out the principle that NSA couldn't keep illegally collected data for vague management reasons.
Which is why Hogan was so surprised to learn NSA was doing the same thing — and had been! — with Section 702 data that had otherwise been purged, which the NSA confessed to Hogan in July of last year. That is, having stopped the practice with a single traditional FISA order, they kept doing it with programmatic 702 data.
In light of the May 2011 [redacted], the Court was very surprised to learn from the July 13, 2015 Notice that the NSA had not been deleting from [redacted] Section 702 records placed on the NSA's Master Purge List ("MPL").
As the Court explained to the government at the October 8 Hearing, it expects the government to comply with its heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this Court's effective operation in considering ex parte submissions from the government, particularly in matters involving large and complex operations such as the implementation of Section 702.
After the hearing, the government submitted several filings effectively saying it was purging the data, then admitting that the technical process it had implemented to effect the purge was only purging some of the selectors that had been illegally collected.
In any case, after 4 years of retaining 702 data that had to be purged, they were finally moving towards deleting it last year.
The second violation pertains to two tools (both names of which are redacted) that help determine whether a selector can be or has been properly tasked (on page 76, Hogan suggests "most Section 702 information [in these databases] that is otherwise subject to purge pertains to roamer communications."
The first appears to be a pre-tasking tool to see whether it properly tasked. This tool has not aged off PRISM data within the required 5 years, nor upstream data within the required 2 years, though it has aged off pre-October 31, 2011 upstream data. NSA has not done so "because of the utility of these records for compliance and collection avoidance purposes." It also helps to respond to OSD and ODNI oversight questions.
The second is a post-tasking tool to identify whether a Section 702 target may be in the US. It doesn't age off PRISM data within the required 5 years, though it does treat upstream data properly. In addition, it doesn't purge items that have been added to the Master Purge List. Rather than purging, it just masks certain fields from most users.
In general, Hogan seemed to believe most of this data did fall within the narrow exception laid out in the December 2010 opinion permitting the retention of unauthorized data for the purposes of collection avoidance, though he asked for further briefing that would have taken place in January.
He did point to the inclusion in these two tools of other selectors that had been put on the purge list, however, which would raise additional questions:
Examples would be incidentally acquired communications of or concerning United States persons that are clearly not relevant to the authorized purpose of the acquisition or that do not contain evidence of a crime which may be disseminated under the minimization procedures … attorney-client communications that do not contain foreign intelligence information or evidence of a crime … and any instances in which the NSA discovers that a United Staes person or person not reasonably believed to be outside the United States at the time of targeting has been intentionally targeted under Section 702.
That is, Hogan raised the possibility that these tools included precisely the kind of information that should be deliberately avoided.
Ah well. He still reauthorized Section 702.
Consider what this means: between the five years between when, in fall 2004, NSA told Colleen Kollar-Kotelly it was violating her category restrictions on the bulk Internet dragnet until the time, in 2009, it admitted it continued to do so with every single record collected, between the non-disclosure of what NSA was really doing with upstream surveillance between 2008 and 2011, and between the time FISC told NSA it couldn't keep illegally collected data for management reasons in May 2011 to the time in July 2015 it confessed it had continued to do that with 702 data, NSA has always been in violation of 50 U.S.C. §1809(a)(2) since it moved Stellar Wind to FISA.
And that's just the stuff they have admitted to.
As I noted, in his opinion approving the Section 702 certifications from last year, Judge Thomas Hogan had a long section describing the 4 different kinds of violations the spooks had committed in the prior year.
One of those pertained to FBI agents not establishing an attorney-client review team for people who had been indicted, as mandated by the FBI's minimization procedures.
In his section on attorney-client review team violations, Hogan describes violations in all four of the Quarterly Reports submitted since the previous 702 certification process: December 19, 2014, March 20, 2015, June 19, 2015, and September 18, 2015. He also cites three more Preliminary Compliance Reports that appear not to be covered in that September 18, 2015 report: one on September 9, 2015, one on October 5, 2015, and one on October 8, 2015. His further discussion describes the government claiming at a hearing on October 8 to discuss the issue that, thanks to a new system FBI had deployed to address the problem, "additional instances of non-compliance with the review team requirement were discovered by the time of the October 8 Hearing."
But as Hogan notes in his November 2015 opinion, FBI discovered a lot of these issues because FBI had had a similar problem the previous year and he required them to review for it closely in his 2014 order. A July 30, 2014 letter submitted as part of the recertification process describes two instances in depth: one noticed in February 2014 and reported in the March Quarterly report, and one noticed in April and reported in the June 2014, each involving multiple accounts. A footnote to that discussion admits "there have been additional, subsequent instances of this type of compliance incident."
Set aside, for the moment, the persistence with which FBI failed to set up review teams to make sure prosecutorial teams were not reading the attorney-client conversations of indicted defendants (who are the only ones who get such protection!!!). Set aside the excuses they gave, such as that they thought this requirement — part of the legally mandatory minimization procedures — didn't apply for sealed indictments or with targets located outside the United States.
Conservatively, this significantly redacted discussion identifies 9 examples (2 reported in Compliance Reports in 2014, at least 1 reported each in each of four quarterly Compliance report between applications, plus 3 individual compliance reports submitted after the September Compliance report) when people who have been indicted had their communications collected under Section 702, whether they were the target of the 702 directives or not.
And yet, as Patrick Toomey wrote in December, not a single defendant has gotten a Section 702 notice during the period in question.
Up until 2013, no criminal defendant received notice of Section 702 surveillance, even though notice is required by statute. Then, after reports surfaced in the New York Times that the Justice Department had misled the Supreme Court and was evading its notice obligations, the government issued five such notices in criminal cases between October 2013 and April 2014. After that, the notices stopped — and for the last 20 months, crickets.
We know both Mohamed Osman Mohamud — who received a 702 notice personally — and Bakhtiyor Jumaev — who would have secondary 702 standing via Jamshid Muhtorov, with whom he got busted — had their attorney-client communications spied on. But that wasn't (damn well better not have been!!) 702 spying, because both parties to all those conversations were in the US.
These are 9 different defendants who've not yet been told they were being spied on under 702.
Why not?
The answer is probably the one Toomey laid out: that even though members of a prosecutorial team were listening in on attorney-client conversations collected under 702, DOJ made sure nothing from those conversations (or anything else collected via 702) got used in another court filing, and thereby avoided the notice requirement.
Based on what can be gleaned from the public record, it seems likely that defendants are not getting notice because DOJ is interpreting a key term of art in Fourth Amendment law too narrowly — the phrase "derived from." Under FISA itself, the government is obliged to give notice to a defendant when its evidence is "derived from" Section 702 surveillance of the defendant's communications. There is good reason to think that DOJ has interpreted this phrase so narrowly that it can almost always get around its own rule, at least in new cases.
It is clear from public reporting and DOJ's filings in the ACLU's lawsuit that it has spent years developing a secret body of law interpreting the phrase "derived from." Indeed, from 2008 to 2013, National Security Division lawyers apparently adopted a definition of "derived" that eliminated notice of Section 702 surveillance altogether. Then, after this policy became public, DOJ came up with something else, which produced a handful of notices in existing cases.
Savage reports in Power Wars that then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole decided that Section 702 information had to have been "material" or "critical" to trigger notice to a defendant. But the book doesn't provide any details about the legal underpinnings for this rule or, crucially, how Cole's directive was actually implemented within DOJ. The complete absence of Section 702 notices since April 2014 suggests DOJ may well have found new ways of short-circuiting the notice requirement.
One obvious way DOJ might have done so is by deeming evidence to be "derived from" Section 702 surveillance only when it has expressly relied on Section 702 information in a later court filing — for instance, in a subsequent FISA application or search warrant application. (Perhaps DOJ's interpretation is slightly more generous than this, but probably not by much.) DOJ could then avoid giving notice to defendants simply by avoiding all references to Section 702 information in those court filings, citing information gleaned from other investigative sources instead — even if the information from those alternative sources would never have been obtained without Section 702.
So these 9 mystery defendants don't tell us anything new. They just give us a number — 9 — of defendants the government now has officially admitted have been spied on under 702 who have not been told that.
As I noted, Judge Hogan did not include this persistent attorney-client problem among the things he invited Amy Jeffress to review as amicus. Whether or not she would have objected to the persistent violation of FBI's minimization procedures, a review of them would also have given her evidence from which she might have questioned FBI's compliance with another part of 702, that defendants get notice.
But DOJ seems pretty determined to flout that requirement going forward.
My apologies to Amy Jeffress.
When I first realized that FISA Court Presiding Judge Thomas Hogan picked her to serve as amicus for the review of the yearly 702 certifications last year, I complained that she, not Marc Zwillinger, got selected (the pick was made in August, but Jeffress would later be picked as one of the standing amicus curiae, along with Zwillinger). After all, Zwillinger has already argued that PRISM (then authorized by Protect America Act) was unconstitutional when he represented Yahoo in its challenge of the program. He's got experience making this precise argument. Plus, Jeffress not only is a long-time national security prosecutor and former top Eric Holder aide, but she has been involved in some actions designed to protect the Executive. I still think Zwillinger might have done a better job. But Jeffress nevertheless made what appears to be a vigorous, though unsuccessful, argument that FBI's back door searches of US person data are unconstitutional.
But it says a lot that Jeffress — someone who narrowly missed being picked as Assistant Attorney General for National Security and who presumably got at least some visibility on back door searches when working with Holder — argued that FBI's warrantless back door searches of communications collected under Section 702 is unconstitutional. (I presume it would be unethical for Jeffress to use information learned while counseling Holder in this proceeding, which might have put her in an interesting position of knowing more than she could say.)
Sadly, Hogan didn't care. Worse, his argument for not caring doesn't make sense. As I'll note, not only did Hogan pick a less than optimal person to make this argument, but he may have narrowly scoped her input, which may have prevented her from raising evidence in Hogan's own opinion that his legal conclusion was problematic.
To be clear, Jeffress was no flaming hippie. She found no problem with the NSA and CIA practice of back door searches, concluding, "that the NSA and CIA minimization procedures are sufficient to ensure that the use of U.S. person identifiers for th[e] purpose of [querying Section 702-acquired information] complies with the statutory requirements of Section 702 and with the Fourth Amendment." But she did find the FBI practice problematic.
Jeffress' amicus brief included at least 10 pages of discussion of her concerns with the practice, though ODNI did not release her brief and Hogan cited very limited bits of it. She argued, "the FISA process cannot be used as a device to investigate wholly unrelated ordinary crimes" and said because the queries could do so they "go far beyond the purpose for which the Section 702-acquired information is collected in permitting queries that are unrelated to national security."
To dismiss Jeffress' arguments, Hogan does several things. He,
There are several problems with his argument.
First, Hogan extends the scope of what the FISA Court of Review interpreted the term "significant purpose," which got added to traditional FISA in the PATRIOT Act and then adopted in FISA Amendments Act.
Hogan cites the FISCR decision in In Re Sealed Case to suggest it authorized the use of information against non-targets of surveillance. He does so by putting the court's ultimate decision after caveats it uses to modify that. "The Court of Review concluded that it would be an "anomalous reading" of the "significant purpose" language of 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)(6)(B) to allow the use of electronic surveillance in such a case. See id. at 736. The Court nevertheless stressed, however, that "[s]o long as the government entertains a realistic option of dealing with the agent other than through criminal prosecution that it satisfies the significant purpose test."
But that's not what FISCR found. Here's how that reads in the original, with Hogan's citations emphasized.
On the one hand, Congress did not amend the definition of foreign intelligence information which, we have explained, includes evidence of foreign intelligence crimes. On the other hand, Congress accepted the dichotomy between foreign intelligence and law enforcement by adopting the significant purpose test. Nevertheless, it is our task to do our best to read the statute to honor congressional intent. The better reading, it seems to us, excludes from the purpose of gaining foreign intelligence information a sole objective of criminal prosecution. We therefore reject the government's argument to the contrary. Yet this may not make much practical difference. Because, as the government points out, when it commences an electronic surveillance of a foreign agent, typically it will not have decided whether to prosecute the agent (whatever may be the subjective intent of the investigators or lawyers who initiate an investigation). So long as the government entertains a realistic option of dealing with the agent other than through criminal prosecution, it satisfies the significant purpose test.
The important point is–and here we agree with the government–the Patriot Act amendment, by using the word "significant," eliminated any justification for the FISA court to balance the relative weight the government places on criminal prosecution as compared to other counterintelligence responses. If the certification of the application's purpose articulates a broader objective than criminal prosecution–such as stopping an ongoing conspiracy–and includes other potential non-prosecutorial responses, the government meets the statutory test. Of course, if the court concluded that the government's sole objective was merely to gain evidence of past criminal conduct–even foreign intelligence crimes–to punish the agent rather than halt ongoing espionage or terrorist activity, the application should be denied.
The government claims that even prosecutions of non-foreign intelligence crimes are consistent with a purpose of gaining foreign intelligence information so long as the government's objective is to stop espionage or terrorism by putting an agent of a foreign power in prison. That interpretation transgresses the original FISA. It will be recalled that Congress intended section 1804(a)(7)(B) to prevent the government from targeting a foreign agent when its "true purpose" was to gain non-foreign intelligence information–such as evidence of ordinary crimes or scandals. See supra at p.14. (If the government inadvertently came upon evidence of ordinary crimes, FISA provided for the transmission of that evidence to the proper authority. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(h)(3).) It can be argued, however, that by providing that an application is to be granted if the government has only a "significant purpose" of gaining foreign intelligence information, the Patriot Act allows the government to have a primary objective of prosecuting an agent for a non-foreign intelligence crime. Yet we think that would be an anomalous reading of the amendment. For we see not the slightest indication that Congress meant to give that power to the Executive Branch. Accordingly, the manifestation of such a purpose, it seems to us, would continue to disqualify an application. That is not to deny that ordinary crimes might be inextricably intertwined with foreign intelligence crimes. For example, if a group of international terrorists were to engage in bank robberies in order to finance the manufacture of a bomb, evidence of the bank robbery should be treated just as evidence of the terrorist act itself. But the FISA process cannot be used as a device to investigate wholly unrelated ordinary crimes.
Hogan ignores three key parts of this passage. First, FISCR's decision only envisions the use of evidence against the target of the surveillance, not against his interlocutors, to in some way neutralize him. Any US person information collected and retained under 702 is, by definition, not the targeted person (whereas he or she might be in a traditional FISA order). Furthermore, FBI's queries of information collected under 702 will find and use information that has nothing to do with putting foreign agents in prison — that is, to "investigate wholly unrelated ordinary crimes," which FISCR prohibited. Finally, by searching data that may be years old for evidence of a crime, FBI is, in effect, "gaining evidence of past criminal conduct" — itself prohibited by FISCR — of someone who isn't even the target of the surveillance.
Having, in my opinion, expanded on what FISCR authorized back in 2002, Hogan then ignores several parts of what FBI querying permits.
Here's (some of) the language FBI added to its minimization procedures, at the suggestion of PCLOB, to finally, after 8 years, fully disclose what it was doing to the FISC.
It is a routine and encouraged practice for FBI to query databases containing lawfully acquired information, including FISA-acquired information, in furtherance of the FBI's authorized intelligence and law enforcement activities, such as assessments, investigations and intelligence collection. Section III.D governs the conduct of such queries. Examples of such queries include, but are not limited to, queries reasonably designed to identify foreign intelligence information or evidence of a crime related to an ongoing authorized investigation or reasonably designed queries conducted by FBI personnel in making an initial decision to open an assessment concerning a threat to national security, the prevention or protection against a Federal crime, or the collection of foreign intelligence, as authorized by the Attorney General Guidelines. These examples are illustrative and neither expand nor restrict the scope of the queries authorized in the language above.
This language makes clear FBI may do back door searches for:
Given Hogan's stingy citations from Jeffress' brief, it's unclear how much of these things she addressed (or whether she was permitted to introduce knowledge gained from having worked closely with Eric Holder when these back door searches were being formalized).
I have written numerous times about the timing of authorization for FBI to do back door searches. There's a passage of the November 6, 2015 FISC opinion finding those searches to be constitutional that some have taken to clearly date the authority. But I believe the (unredacted sections of the) passage are being misread.
As Judge Thomas Hogan describes, "Queries by FBI personnel of Section 702-acquired data…
As the unredacted parts of the section make clear, queries for both foreign intelligence information or evidence of a crime "have been explicitly permitted by the FBI Minimization Procedures since 2009." [my emphasis] The footnote goes onto describe how Minimization Procedures approved by Attorney General Mukasey on October 22, 2008 and submitted on some redacted date were approved by an opinion issued on April 7, 2009.
Already, that's a curious set of details. If the minimization procedures were approved in October 2008, normally they'd be submitted close to right away, though it's not clear that that happened. But why bother, given that FISC had just approved FAA certifications on September 4 (this timing resembles what had happened earlier that year, when the government significantly changed the program within days of getting certificates approved)? In any case, James Clapper's censors want to hide what those dates were. One likely reason they might have done so would be to hide the dates from defendants, including a few of the ones challenging 702. Another would be to obscure how the approval process went after passage of FISA Amendments Act, specifically given that the FISA Court of Review finalized its Yahoo opinion in August of that year, in which it relied on DOJ's promise that "there is no database" of incidentally collected US person information.
But two other things suggest that's not the end of the story. First, the use of "explicitly" suggests there may have been a period before FISC approved the minimization procedures when such a practice was approved but perhaps not explicitly. Perhaps that simply refers to that lag period, between the time Mukasey approved those minimization procedures and the time FISC approved them.
But then there's that redacted paragraph (the next footnote, 25, starts after it). Hogan adds something to his discussion beyond his description of the explicit approval of those minimization procedures.
As I have pointed out, Mukasey (writing with then Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, who would also have to approve any PRISM minimization procedures) made it clear in response to a Russ Feingold amendment of FISA Amendments Act in February of 2008 that they intended to spy in Americans under PRISM.
So it sure seems likely the Administration at the very least had FBI back door searches planned, if not already in the works, well before FISC approved the minimization procedures in 2009. That's probably what Hogan explained in that paragraph, but James Clapper apparently believes it would be legally inconvenient to mention that.
Yesterday, I Con the Record released three FISA Court opinions from last year. This November 6, 2015 opinion, authorizing last year's Section 702 certifications, has attracted the most attention, both for its list of violations (including the NSA's 3rd known instance of illegal surveillance) and for the court's rejection of amicus Amy Jeffress' argument that FBI's back door searches are not constitutional. I'll return to both issues.
I'm surprised, however, that this passage hasn't generated more attention.
The NSA and CIA Minimization Procedures included as part of the July 15, 2015 Submission each contain new language stating that "[n]othing in these procedures shall prohibit the retention, processing, or dissemination of information reasonably necessary to comply with specific constitutional, judicial, or legislative mandates." See NSA Minimization Procedures at 1; CIA Minimization Procedures at 4-5. These provisions were not included in the draft procedures that were submitted to the Court in June 2015, but appear to have been added by the government thereafter. They are not discussed in the July 15, 2015 Memorandum.
So basically, NSA and CIA just slipped in language suggesting that they can blow off minimization procedures mandated by Congress, without prior explanation (which is highly unusual in FISA process). The language reminds me of the language NSA used in Intelligence Oversight Board reports to cover up for Stellar Wind. Or the language John Yoo used in his letter to Colleen Kollar-Kotelly saying that FISC couldn't bind the President.
Thomas Hogan was, to some degree, suitably shocked by this. After laying out how much detail goes into minimization procedures, he said,
A provision that would allow the NSA and CIA to deviate from any of these restrictions based un unspecified "mandates" could undermine the Court's ability to find the procedures satisfy the above-described statutory requirement.
Ya think?!?!
Hogan then went on to suggest — based on what evidence, he doesn't say — that the NSA and CIA will only use this language sparingly because the NCTC, which apparently has similar language in their minimization procedures, claimed they'd only use it sparingly.
It appears, however, that the government does not intend to apply these provisions as broadly as their language would arguably permit. In 2012, the government proposed a similar provision as part of minimization procedures to be applied by NCTC in handling certain unminimized terrorism-related information acquired by FBI pursuant to other provisions of FISA. In requesting approval of a provision that would allow NCTC personnel to deviate from other requirements of its minimization procedures when "reasonably necessary to comply with specific constitutional, judicial, or legislative mandates," the government asserted that "Executive Branch orders or directives will not trigger this provision, nor will general Congressional directives that are not specific to information NCTC receives pursuant to this motion. [citation removed] The Court approved the NCTC minimization procedures with the understanding that this provision would be applied sparingly.The Court described the provision as permitting NCTC personnel to "retain, process or disseminate information when reasonably necessary to fulfill specific legal requirements" and compared it to a more narrowly-drafted provision of separate procedures that permits CIA to retain or disseminate information that is "required by law to be retained or disseminated."
This language, which if I'm counting correctly, is now in everyone's minimization procedures but FBI's, is alarming enough in the NCTC context, which will only get counterterrorism information and that only via FBI.
But CIA and NSA get raw data. Shit-tons of it. Which makes the scale of such language pretty damned alarming.
Having thus assumed the NCTC example is decent precedent for the NSA and CIA adoption, Hogan then does something else amazing. He relies on "informal communications."
The Court understands based on informal communications between Court staff and attorneys for the government that NSA and CIA intend to apply the similar provisions at issue here in the same narrow manner. In any case, to avoid a deficiency under the above-described definition of "minimization procedures" the Court must construe the phrase "specific constitutional, judicial, or legislative mandates" to include only those mandates containing language that clearly and specifically requires action in contravention of an otherwise-applicable provision of the requirement of the minimization procedures. Such clear and specific language, for instance, might be found in a court order requiring the government to preserve a particular target's communications beyond the date when they would otherwise be subject to age-off under the minimization procedures. On the other hand, these provisions should not be interpreted as permitting an otherwise prohibited retention or use of information simply because that retention of use could assist the government in complying with a general statutory requirement, such as those stated at 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(b).
This is batshit insane! The court has for years, fought, often unsuccessfully, to keep NSA within the scope of the law as interpreted in minimization procedures. The government slipped in a provision basically saying, if we decide we don't have to follow minimization procedures mandated by law, we won't. And Hogan hasn't required written explanation for why the agencies need this?!?!?!
Hogan does it again in a footnote suggesting the government "may" use this provision to share data with Congress.
The Court understands that the government may have added these new provisions to clarify that information acquired under Section 702 may be shared with Members of Congress or Congressional committees in connection with Congressional oversight of the program. If so, the Court would urge the government to consider replacing these broadly-worded provisions with language that is narrowly tailored to that purpose.
Hey Judge Hogan? The law requiring you approve these minimization procedures and NSA follow them? That law comes from Congress. If Congress needs NSA to start sharing raw data with it (!!!!), then it can change the law. At the very least, don't you owe your independent branch of government — and the American people — more certainty than that this may explain this alarming provision?
But no. Hogan required nothing in writing. He did require reporting on how NSA and CIA use it. I'm not sure how that'll be effective when President Trump decides he can pass an Executive Order requiring NSA to keep all the US person data it collects but not tell FISC about it, because the order they report on this to him is part of the minimization procedures they say they can blow off.
And note this is not one of the two areas that Hogan asked amicus Amy Jeffress to weigh in on. Apparently this is either not a "novel or significant interpretation of the law" requiring amicus review or Hogan didn't include it because it didn't get included in the June draft, which is when he decided this should have amicus review.
There's a lot that's troubling in this opinion. But the most troubling is that the presiding Judge of the FISC court just rubber-stamped NSA and CIA blowing off entirely the minimization procedures that are the core of the FISC's leverage over the government.
At the end of September, I Con the Record released a bunch of documents relating to 2014's Section 702 certification process including the August 26, 2014 Thomas Hogan opinion that, among other things, authorized an expansion of FBI's minimization procedures.
The memo reflects a 2013 change to FBI minimization procedures (it was first approved on September 20, 2012) that permits it to disseminate information that,
is evidence of a crime and that it reasonably believes may assist in the mitigation or prevention of computer intrusions or attacks to private entities or individuals that have been or are at risk of being victimized by such intrusions or attacks, or to private entities or individuals … capable of providing assistance in mitigating or preventing such intrusions or attacks. Wherever reasonably practicable, such disseminations should not include United States person identifying information unless the FBI reasonably believes it is necessary to enable the recipient to assist in the mitigation or prevention of computer intrusion or attacks. (18)
This order expands that dissemination permission to include "dissemination of Section 702 information to someone in the private sector in order to mitigate other forms of serious harm, such as 'a plot to destroy a building or monument." The change "enables the FBI to disseminate information to private parties in less extreme cases." Update: Since this language appears to exist only in the FBI minimization procedures, it should refer only to PRISM data, not upstream data, since FBI doesn't get the latter in unminimized form, unless that has changed in some way that is not obvious in the minimization procedures.
Finally, Hogan approved a change to the FBI minimization procedures that permitted dissemination of 702-collected information to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children if it is "evidence of a crime related to child exploitation material, including child pornography," or for the purpose of obtaining technical assistance (the NCMEC keeps databases of images of child porn to track when new images are released).
While these are all generally included in the serious bodily harm provision of Section 702 — to say nothing of NSA's broad inclusion of "property" in "bodily harm" — they show three clear expansions of the use of Section 702 for criminal investigations in recent years (and the computer intrusion language impacts my questions about how CISA interacts with Section 702).
Not only are those expansions worth noting in their own right, but they're also worth considering in light of Bob Litt's disclosure on February 4, 2015 (that is, chronologically after this change, but before this change got publicly released) of the crimes that FBI may use Section 702 information to prosecute.
And so today I want to say that in fact the list of crimes other than national security crimes for which we can use Section 702 information about U.S. persons is crimes involving death, kidnapping, substantial bodily harm, conduct that is a specified offense against a minor as defined in a particular statute, incapacitation or destruction of critical infrastructure, cyber security, transnational crimes, or human trafficking.
Litt's list seems broader than, though clearly related to, the items approved in the unredacted parts of the FBI minimization procedures, though the language from the minimization procedures seems to explain what "incapacitation" of critical infrastructure is. As always, remember that "transnational crime" is a politicized subsection of mob crimes that never includes the crimes implicating our nations mob-banksters.
And keep in mind. This language would have been operative in the weeks leading up to the Sony hack. And yet the ability to share such intelligence with Sony did not prevent the hack.
In any case, I'm going to do a series of posts on the Snooper's Charter released yesterday in the UK, and I wanted to clarify precisely what the available uses of Section 702 to investigate crimes are.


text:
Archt One wireless audio system produces 360-degree sound
Most wireless speakers have something in common in that they are only able to produce sound that travels in one direction. You have to be in front of the speakers to get the most benefit and best audio quality. There are a few speakers that are designed to produce a 360-degree soundscape allowing you to get optimum sound anywhere in a room, no matter where the speaker is positioned. Those omnidirectional speakers allow everyone in a room to get the best audio quality possible.


text:
MUNCIE, Ind. - First Merchants is proud to partner with United Way to support the MyFreeTaxes program, which provides free state and federal tax preparation and filing assistance for qualified individuals.
MUNCIE, Ind. - The generosity of First Merchants employees helped make the recent holiday season brighter for dozens of local children. Part of an annual tradition, a total of 150 children in nine classrooms at the Head Start of Delaware County received gifts from employees of First Merchants Corporation, First Merchants Bank, First Merchants Trust Company and First Merchants Insurance Group this year.
MUNCIE, Ind. - First Merchants Corporation (NASDAQ: FRME) has elected F. Howard Halderman to the Board of Directors for First Merchants Corporation and First Merchants Bank, N.A. Mr.
MUNCIE, Ind. - First Merchants Bank Regional President Karen Karmolinski has been profiled in an article in the local M Magazine, a publication showcasing topics relating to Muncie and East Central Indiana.
MUNCIE, Ind. - First Merchants Corporation (NASDAQ: FRME) successfully completed its previously announced merger with CFS Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: CITZ), of Munster, Indiana on Tuesday, November 12, 2013. In connection with the merger, Citizens Financial Bank has also merged with and into First Merchants Bank. The combined First Merchants Bank has 95 banking centers in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio and approximately $3.5 billion in loans, $4.3 billion in deposits, and total assets and shareholders' equity of $5.5 billion and $653 million, respectively.
MUNCIE, Ind. - Thursday October 17, 2013, marked the end of the United Way of Delaware County fundraising campaign at First Merchants Corporation, and it ended big! First Merchants is the epitome of what it means to LIVE UNITED. They are the true definition of their motto: The Strength of Big, The Service of Small.
PLAINFIELD, Ind. - Want to run on the dragstrip at Lucas Oil Raceway?
MUNCIE, Ind. - Throughout the month of July, all Delaware County Banking Centers and the Data Center were collection locations for the Hearts and Hands United 7th Annual Tools for School supply drive.
MUNCIE, Ind. - On Friday, April 26, 15 First Merchants employees got 'outside' their comfort zone and participated in the first Delaware County 2013 First Merchants Community Day event at the Red-tail Nature Preserve.
MUNCIE, Ind. and MUNSTER, Ind. - First Merchants Corporation (NASDAQ: FRME) and CFS Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: CITZ) today announced they have executed a definitive agreement whereby CFS will merge with and into First Merchants, and its wholly-owned bank subsidiary, Citizens Financial Bank, will merge with and into First Merchants Bank, NA.
Investment Management solutions provided by First Merchants Private Wealth Advisors may not be FDIC insured,are not deposits of First Merchants Bank and may lose value.


text:
Begin New Search
Refine Last Search
Cemetery Lookup
Add Burial Records
Help with Find A Grave
Top Contributors
Success Stories
Community Forums
Find A Grave Store
Log In
ad feedback
ad feedback
Flowers left for
Jocelyn Ackad
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God. Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Added: Jun. 29, 2010
Privacy Statement
Terms of Service
ad feedback


text:
130 pitches
from 05 to 18 June 2016In rental unit
from 05 to 18 June 2016On pitch
- On the campsite informs you of the campsite's level of integration into its natural surroundings, its general attractiveness and the quality of the accommodations and pitches.
- Swimming pool gives you an indication of the size of the water complexes, the relaxation area and the play equipment provided.
- Facilities informs you of the range of facilities provided in the campingvillage (restaurant, bar, shops...).
- Activities indicates the number of activities offered for all ages within the camping-village.
Our key features
- Located between Blois and Amboise, in the heart of Loire chateau country
- A 14-hectare estate in an unspoilt woodland setting
- A heated 500m ² heated water park with slides, paddling pool,...
- Family atmosphere
For your children
Play facilities geared to their needs, from the paddling pool to the play areas, as well as activities especially for them.they will be delighted with the zip wire, the 8 trampolines and the multi-sports ground. A whole campsite dedicated to children!
- Special Babies : 0-4 years
- Club Kids: 5-7 years
- Club Juniors: 8-12 years
- Club Teens: 13-17 years
Parc du Val de Loire village holiday rentals
Located in Mesland, between Blois and Amboise, in 14 hectares of grounds, the Parc du Val de Loire campsite invites you to spend your next holiday in the Vallée des Rois. Visit the many nearby châteaux – Chambord, Chenonceau or even Cheverny – walk through their grounds and for once, live life like an ancient king.
At Yelloh! Village Parc du Val de Loire, your stay will be regal. Discover its 500m² heated, aquatic park with water slides, paddling pool and waterfall, its indoor pool, high-quality accommodation, kids' club and many services and amenities: restaurant, bar, shop and many others. Go for it, come to Loir-et-Cher for an unforgettable camping holiday!
New features
Newand accommodation options
Yelloh! Village Parc du Val de Loire video clip
Your activities on the premises
Our 500m² heated water park awaits you with its indoor pool and its outdoor pool with slides and jacuzzi. Come and discover the infrastructures: an area with 8 trampolines, a multi-sports ground, a mini farm and 2 inflatable structures More traditional: ping-pong, petanque, sports grounds. A variety of evening entertainment, from karaoke to the circus. There is something for everyone.
Your nearby activities
In the heart of the Loire valley, come and discover a fabulously beautiful heritage. Come for a rendezvous with the History of France, and stand spellbound before the chateaux of the Loire, their magnificent architecture and their beautiful gardens. Cycle along our beautiful paths and explore the Loire and our vineyards. A rich land where you'll enjoy the laid-back way of life.
Our facilities
Everything is at hand, just like in any small village: grocery store and bakery, a restaurant-bar-pizzeria to welcome you and your family or friends, and all the traditional facilities of the holiday camping village. A launderette with tumble-drier and washing machine, camper-car waste-disposal service, Internet access and WiFi, telephone booths, bike hire, baby packs, barbecues...
Latest reviews for
Parc du Val de Loire
Stay :
from 13/07/2016
until 20/07/2016
On pitch
With children
of the loyalty program
Stay :
from 12/06/2016
until 24/06/2016
In rental unit
With children
of the loyalty program
Stay :
from 11/07/2016
until 18/07/2016
On pitch
With children
+33 (0)2 54 70 27 18
MESLAND, 1 km
Tours airport, 42 km
Onzain railway station, 5 km


text:
1-2 of 2jobs
Job Filters
1-2 of 2
lead cognos tm jobs
Refine your searchClear Filters
Date Added
More Filters
Sr. Technical Specialist, Architect
NBCUniversal - Orlando, FL
Lead the architecture of scalable, high-performance data platforms. Experience with one or more reporting tools such as Cognos, Business Objects, MicroStrategy....
Systems Analyst I / Sr.
PPG Industries - Pittsburgh, PA
PPG: BRINGING INNOVATION TO THE SURFACE. (TM) PPG Industries' vision is to continue to be the world's leading coatings and specialty products company....